Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

And Israel is hardly facing an existential threat today.

And don't you think that is linked to repeatedly winning defensive wars as well as pre-emptively denying very advantageous ground to their enemies in 1967, or their continued readiness since then to proactively deal with threats and risks?

And if we are doing comparisons with western countries and such let's try to imagine what situation could be analogous to what Israel has been facing since 1948. Are you telling me that if we lived in a world, where, say, the IRA now in control of Ireland was firing rockets at your part of England regularly, then landed in big numbers as a surprise, killed a couple of thousand of people, kidnapped almost a thousand more, then resumed firing rockets from deep within Dublin, you'd be saying "well there are rules of war, the IRA isn't all Irish, we must work on a peaceful compromise"? I doubt that.

Yes it's a silly scenario, that's because we do not have a situation even remotely comparable that of Israel's. It's easy to be on the high horse and demand that they risk their own lives on the altar of Western values their enemies not only purposefully ignore but actively turn against them, when you will never have to face the same choices like they do.

[Josquius]

Tyr, Will "IDF fucking off back to their own country and letting the Palestinians get a proper working state up and running."  Actually stop Palestinian attacks?  Is there any indication that this will cause them to stop shooting rockets and sending gunmen and suicide bombers into Israel?  I mean Hamas has promised to continue murdering people and they really believe they can win because God is on their side.  And if it does work how long will it take?  How long should the Israelis tolerate the murder of their people in the hope that the Palestinians will get tired of it?

The definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
This path clearly isn't working. The only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide. Tough decision.

And Israel is hardly facing an existential threat today.

And don't you think that is linked to repeatedly winning defensive wars as well as pre-emptively denying very advantageous ground to their enemies in 1967, or their continued readiness since then to proactively deal with threats and risks?

I don't get your point.
Of course Israel winning when it actually was seriously at risk back in 67 et al is pretty key to their current situation.
Their actions in recent decades however haven't really done much to help their security and stability. Supporting Hamas as a way to weaken Fatah has really bit them in the arse, and in hindsight its pretty obvious that their treatment of the Palestinians would only encourage support for extremism.

And if we are doing comparisons with western countries and such let's try to imagine what situation could be analogous to what Israel has been facing since 1948. Are you telling me that if we lived in a world, where, say, the IRA now in control of Ireland was firing rockets at your part of England regularly, then landed in big numbers as a surprise, killed a couple of thousand of people, kidnapped almost a thousand more, then resumed firing rockets from deep within Dublin, you'd be saying "well there are rules of war, the IRA isn't all Irish, we must work on a peaceful compromise"? I doubt that.

Yes it's a silly scenario, that's because we do not have a situation even remotely comparable that of Israel's. It's easy to be on the high horse and demand that they risk their own lives on the altar of Western values their enemies not only purposefully ignore but actively turn against them, when you will never have to face the same choices like they do.

Oh sure. I totally get why Israel lost its collective mind and started levelling Gaza. Governments shouldn't give into this sort of bloodlust and should think rationally even when emotions are high. But I get it.
However...it's been months now. And still no sign of any sort of thought through plan for just what the hell they're doing. Its all just a pointless slaughter.

[grumbler]

The definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
This path clearly isn't working. The only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide. Tough decision.

This is an incredibly ironic statement given that Israel has twice withdrawn from Gaza and we see the same results each time.  Withdrawing now would be repeating the same thing over again, no?

If "the only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide" and Hamas absolutely rejects peace, where does that leave us?

[The Minsky Moment]

Not really a surprise that "Stop killing Palestinians" would be a unifying policy position between Palestinian groups of all stripes and the majority of people in the west.

Unfortunately, "keep killing Israelis" also seems to be a unifying policy position between Palestinian groups of all stripes and at least some people in the west.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah I literally feel like Josq is just "gish-galloping" at this point, he keeps falling back to nonsensical and self-contradictory pro-Pal talking points. I think it is evidence of a position he hasn't really spent a lot of intellectual energy fleshing out--he just knows "the right sort" e.g. leftists, dislike Israel and like Palestine, and he is throwing anything at the dart board he thinks might stick.

On one hand he glibly references "invalidity" or "irregularity" in Israel's formation to somewhat undermine Israel's right to exist (but of course, I doubt he would openly admit he thinks Israel shouldn't exist at all), but then says "well we have to be opposed to all ethnic cleansing", ignoring that a significant component of the pro-Palestinian position is ethnic cleansing. Even the Palestinians who do not believe Israel should be outright destroyed, I suspect a huge majority of them would say that Arabs should be given any land that was ever Arab owned at any point in the past--which would mean millions of Jewish Israelis in Israel proper having to lose their homes, I think even the most progressive Palestinian only envisions a legitimate Jewish state as a small rump around Haifa.

And of course the majoritarian position is exactly what the chants say--one state, Palestine, Arab ruled, Jews either completely expelled or reduced to a very small minority with virtually no civil rights.

Quibbling about whether this is "genocidal" or not is the refuge of idiots and Corbyns of the world.

It is also mostly irrelevant to the current conflict if the Israeli right's strategic decision making of the last 20 years was bad. So what? Israel still has to defend itself in the here and now. It isn't a remotely viable position to say "well, Israel should have done a better job managing the situation, so for some reason I can't really explain that means they need to leave Hamas in control of Gaza and leave..." Like leaving Hamas in power in Gaza and leaving was one of those supposed strategic bad decisions, and we're supposed to expect Israel to double down on that again?

[Josquius]

Yeah I literally feel like Josq is just "gish-galloping" at this point, he keeps falling back to nonsensical and self-contradictory pro-Pal talking points. I think it is evidence of a position he hasn't really spent a lot of intellectual energy fleshing out--he just knows "the right sort" e.g. leftists, dislike Israel and like Palestine, and he is throwing anything at the dart board he thinks might stick.

On one hand he glibly references "invalidity" or "irregularity" in Israel's formation to somewhat undermine Israel's right to exist (but of course, I doubt he would openly admit he thinks Israel shouldn't exist at all), but then says "well we have to be opposed to all ethnic cleansing", ignoring that a significant component of the pro-Palestinian position is ethnic cleansing. Even the Palestinians who do not believe Israel should be outright destroyed, I suspect a huge majority of them would say that Arabs should be given any land that was ever Arab owned at any point in the past--which would mean millions of Jewish Israelis in Israel proper having to lose their homes, I think even the most progressive Palestinian only envisions a legitimate Jewish state as a small rump around Haifa.

And of course the majoritarian position is exactly what the chants say--one state, Palestine, Arab ruled, Jews either completely expelled or reduced to a very small minority with virtually no civil rights.

Quibbling about whether this is "genocidal" or not is the refuge of idiots and Corbyns of the world.

It is also mostly irrelevant to the current conflict if the Israeli right's strategic decision making of the last 20 years was bad. So what? Israel still has to defend itself in the here and now. It isn't a remotely viable position to say "well, Israel should have done a better job managing the situation, so for some reason I can't really explain that means they need to leave Hamas in control of Gaza and leave..." Like leaving Hamas in power in Gaza and leaving was one of those supposed strategic bad decisions, and we're supposed to expect Israel to double down on that again?

Nice. When the inconsistencies in your positions are caught you just spring into ridiculous "Well you're just a smelly commie so nerr!".
My positions on this matter are consistent and fair. I recognise that history is an evolving process.
You don't like that. You prefer black and white Israel vs. Palestine shouting so you just retreat to your safe space.

The definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
This path clearly isn't working. The only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide. Tough decision.

This is an incredibly ironic statement given that Israel has twice withdrawn from Gaza and we see the same results each time.  Withdrawing now would be repeating the same thing over again, no?

I don't see where the irony is here. You're being pedantic about saying doing the same thing over and over again when its only been twice before? Third time lucky?

If "the only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide" and Hamas absolutely rejects peace, where does that leave us?

A rhetorical question?
You're surely well aware Hamas aren't the only group in Palestine. They're not even the legal government.

[The Minsky Moment]

You're surely well aware Hamas aren't the only group in Palestine. They're not even the legal government.

Hamas and Fatah are still the only political groupings of any significance in Palestine. There's a few Marxist and Maoist parties still left, all of which are pro-terror or militant. The only non-militant political movement was the Fayyad-Ashrawi group, but they are basically defunct.

[Razgovory]

I don't see where the irony is here. You're being pedantic about saying doing the same thing over and over again when its only been twice before? Third time lucky?

  It's only failed twice before and killed a few thousand people.  Let's try it again!

[grumbler]

This is an incredibly ironic statement given that Israel has twice withdrawn from Gaza and we see the same results each time.  Withdrawing now would be repeating the same thing over again, no?

I don't see where the irony is here. You're being pedantic about saying doing the same thing over and over again when its only been twice before? Third time lucky?

Are you seriously arguing that the Hamas problem will be solved by an Israeli withdrawal merely because it would be the third withdrawal?  I'm not sure whether that makes you naïve or just otnay ootay ightbray.

If "the only two possible routes open seem to be peace or genocide" and Hamas absolutely rejects peace, where does that leave us?

A rhetorical question?

A rhetorical question?

You're surely well aware Hamas aren't the only group in Palestine. They're not even the legal government.

You are surely aware that Hamas is the elected government of Gaza (which is where the war is taking place.  No force except the Israeli military can stop continued Hamas terrorism.  The PA certainly cannot - it already tried, and failed miserably.

If we are to follow your advice and try something new, then the new thing would be to pursue Hamas to destruction, not back off once again and allow Hamas to reconstruct its terror campaign (which was not just in Israel - Hamas terrorizes Gazans as well).

We can object to the Israeli government's stance of "no innocent civilians" without requiring Israel to forgo resolving their war with Hamas.  Israel's war on Hamas will inflict collateral damage, but a withdrawal would also inflict collateral damage.  I'd like to see Israel be far more mindful of the collateral damage they inflict, but think that this is possible.  It is impossible to imagine Hamas limiting collateral damage. The two sides are not the same.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really a surprise that "Stop killing Palestinians" would be a unifying policy position between Palestinian groups of all stripes and the majority of people in the west.

I think I understand now.  When you mentioned compromise you meant a compromise between Hamas and yourself, not Hamas and Israel.

[Valmy]

Tyr, Will "IDF fucking off back to their own country and letting the Palestinians get a proper working state up and running."  Actually stop Palestinian attacks?

Even if a Palestinian government took over with the best of intentions I don't think they could do this. Which is why I said back in 2006 that some kind of force needed to be deployed in Gaza to establish stability, disarm the militia, and guarantee Israeli security. To do otherwise was just to set up the Palestinians for failure and well...here we are.

[Admiral Yi]

Video of 10/7 kidnappings.  Seven women in the IDF.

[Josquius]

Are you seriously arguing that the Hamas problem will be solved by an Israeli withdrawal merely because it would be the third withdrawal?  I'm not sure whether that makes you naïve or just otnay ootay ightbray.

Completely the opposite. That's the position of Raz et al which I am criticising.
Repeating this same cycle of smash up Gaza, go home, wait for the next attack from Gaza, rinse and repeat, clearly doesn't work. An actual attempt to move things forward and produce a lasting peace is required.

A rhetorical question?

Yes. Genocide or ethnic cleansing is not a solution that any serious person should consider.
Of course as we've seen in this thread some on the Israel can do no wrong side do think it's worth a look.

You are surely aware that Hamas is the elected government of Gaza (which is where the war is taking place.  No force except the Israeli military can stop continued Hamas terrorism.  The PA certainly cannot - it already tried, and failed miserably.

If we are to follow your advice and try something new, then the new thing would be to pursue Hamas to destruction, not back off once again and allow Hamas to reconstruct its terror campaign (which was not just in Israel - Hamas terrorizes Gazans as well).

We can object to the Israeli government's stance of "no innocent civilians" without requiring Israel to forgo resolving their war with Hamas.  Israel's war on Hamas will inflict collateral damage, but a withdrawal would also inflict collateral damage.  I'd like to see Israel be far more mindful of the collateral damage they inflict, but think that this is possible. 

And levelling civilian areas, blowing up kids, imposing an artificial famine... That's how you get a people to not support extremists like Hamas?
You can't defeat extremist groups with brute force. More often than not a brute force reaction is exactly what they're trying to troll you into as they know it plays very well for their future base within their group.

Hamas may be evil but they aren't stupid. They knew their little attack wasn't going to defeat Israel once and for all. They knew Israel would come down on them hard. They thought they'd get a bit more support than they did and maybe make for a larger war, but the outcome of Gaza levelled was never in doubt for them.
The most believable analysis of their goals I've seen is they recognise the Arab world inching towards peace with Israel and they knew they had  to try and get violence going again or they would fade into irrelevance.

I don't see where the irony is here. You're being pedantic about saying doing the same thing over and over again when its only been twice before? Third time lucky?

  It's only failed twice before and killed a few thousand people.  Let's try it again!

You use the lol emoji here yet this is your position which I am mocking...

[Razgovory]

Okay, so I'm confused.  You don't want the Israelis to withdrawal?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Tyr, Will "IDF fucking off back to their own country and letting the Palestinians get a proper working state up and running."  Actually stop Palestinian attacks?

Even if a Palestinian government took over with the best of intentions I don't think they could do this. Which is why I said back in 2006 that some kind of force needed to be deployed in Gaza to establish stability, disarm the militia, and guarantee Israeli security. To do otherwise was just to set up the Palestinians for failure and well...here we are.

They'd just end up attacking those peacekeepers too.